[Peace-discuss] BLM virtue signaling sans specifics

[J.B. Nicholson]

David Green wrote:
> In any event, I'm cutting BLM no slack. It's analysis is preposterous, with
> no material component whatsoever.

I concur, I'm particularly tired of the virtue signaling when what we need are 
specific, agreeable, and actionable policy choices with a published record of 
compliance with those policies.

Where sloganeering could work I fail to see many BLM supporters championing a slogan 
backed by something we could use. For example, we need Medicare for All (particularly 
amidst a pandemic). Neither major party candidate backs this (Donald Trump hasn't 
called for one and Joe Biden is on record saying he'd veto such a bill should one 
come to his desk as President). "Medicare for All" is brief enough to fit on signs, 
well-defined (2 extant bills in Congress right now), and widely supported by the 
public (even pre-COVID-19 time). A universal jobs program, universal basic income, 
and immediate rent/mortgage payment program are other programs which could all help 
the poor right now. I rarely see anyone pair any of these with BLM either and I don't 
get the impression that BLM calls for these programs to be defined (where necessary) 
or demanded.

Instead I see plenty of sloganeering advocating "defund the police"[1] and spelling 
out "Black Lives Matter". For all of the proper complaints about the police murdering 
black people, it's not easy to get specifics on something actionable which would end 
more of the same lethal outcomes. Giving communities control over police (not merely 
advisory roles; and I say that as having been involved in such an effort years ago 
knowing the whole time that it was insufficient to the task) is a good start but I 
rarely hear this brought up and clarified to be actionable: Any agreeable policy 
choices must describe what's in scope for the police to handle at all, how the police 
will be trained to do amenable tasks, and there must be reviews listing what actually 
gets done. This is full-time work that has to be carried out.

As I've written before, when the establishment repeats one's talking points one is 
probably losing whatever fight they claim to be waging. Agreement with the 
establishment is indistinguishable from co-optation and therefore is neither radical 
nor challenging the establishment. I take any claim along this line to be a 
police-friendly variant of greenwashing -- businesses which engage in fundamentally 
anti-environmental practices use labeling to make their work seem more 
environmentally-friendly than they are.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Starbucks told people 
(https://nitter.net/Starbucks/status/1271440945028796417 or 
https://twitter.net/Starbucks/status/1271440945028796417)

> In response to this historic time, our store partners can also show support for
> the Black Lives Matter movement with their own t-shirts, pins and name tags. To
> learn more, visit: [a link to get Starbucks merchandise]

But it remains to be seen if this will stop Starbucks' and Nespresso coffee beans 
farmers from being exploited. According to Channel 4 (UK television station) 
"Children under 13 filmed working around 40-hour weeks in gruelling conditions, 
picking coffee for little more than we pay for a Starbucks latte or a pack of 
Nespresso pods" (according to 
https://www.channel4.com/press/news/dispatches-starbucks-and-nespresso-truth-about-your-coffee 
from "Dispatches", an expose showing that this is going on). Circa 2020-03-01 
Starbucks said it has:

> [Z]ero tolerance for child labour anywhere in our supply chain[.] We’ve launched
> a full investigation into the claims brought by Channel 4, carried out in 
> partnership with a leading third-party auditor. We can confirm we have not 
> purchased coffee from the farms in question during the most recent harvest
> season, and we will not do so until we can verify that they are not in breach of
> C.A.F.E. Practices – our ethical sourcing program developed in partnership with 
> Conservation International that provides comprehensive social, environmental and 
> economic standards, including zero tolerance for child labour.

T-shirts also don't create policies which clearly and unambiguously inform stores to 
stop kicking people out for being black or wearing "Ex-Muslims of North America" 
t-shirts as has happened in Florida, Philadelphia, and Texas Starbucks stores.

Merchandise (t-shirts, buttons, etc.) do little more than tell the public that an 
organization wants to look like it cares so people feel more comfortable becoming 
customers.


[1] https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-defunding-the-police-really-means/ (a 3m 45s 
video) purports to tell us "what defund the police really means". It claims that "We 
could move our tax money away from harmful policing toward human-centered services 
that actually work to keep our communities safer and help them thrive" and "In some 
cities, just giving 5% less to the police could DOUBLE the budget for public health". 
But no specific programs for "education, healthcare, housing, & opportunity" are 
listed. Instead we get lots of talk about how shifting money would help us. We're 
told this shift is happening but not where. None of the "cities across America" are 
named. The closest we get to details seems focused on "Demand[ing] INVESTMENT into 
Black communities". But why not universalize the appeal and the benefit? Medicare for 
All, for instance, doesn't help just poor black people it helps all poor people.

-J